Shields
A character equipped with a shield rolls 1D6 when hit in melee or missile combat for which he or she was prepared. The shield roll is deducted from the attacker's damage. If the attacker rolls a six and the shield-bearer rolls a 1, then the attacker can choose either to do the full 6 points of damage or to render the shield useless until repaired.BucklersBucklers are small shields that are sufficiently small to be carried inconspicuously on a belt. They act as shields in all respects, but absorb only 1D4 points of damage.
These are designed to work with the original D&D rules, in which all weapons do 1D6 damage (unless wielded by something like an ogre or a giant). So the best shield parry will stop all the damage from the most powerful (or most accurate) human blow, but may not be capable of stopping a heavy blow from a larger and more powerful foe. An ogre uses a d8 for damage (rather than the original D6 +2), so there's a 1 in 4 chance that an ogre's blow will cause damage through even the best-placed shield.
As I set out in that post, I'm also tending towards a default 6 hit points for human-sized creatures (and first-level characters), although I might settle for a minimum score of 2 on a character's first hit die.
The reason for this is simple. I want each combat to have plenty of elements of uncertainty. One thing I love about RuneQuest combat is the sense of danger. For all your character's armour, you never know when that humble trollkin is going to roll a critical or an impale.
But at the same time, I don't want well-armed first-level characters to be walking on eggshells all the time. I think well-armed men-at-arms (e.g. first-level fighters) should fancy their chances when faced with lightly armed brigands (or orcs, for that matter).
Giving first-level characters and their foes six hit points each means that combat is risky, but that better armour - and especially shields - are likely to greatly reduce that risk if only one side has them. So three men-at-arms in mail with shields can feel confident (though not safe) in taking on three unarmoured brigands with cudgels.
With 6 HP apiece, D6 damage and a D6 absorption through a shield (unless the shield:damage ratio is 1:6), each attack has the potential to be deadly. But we're not in the situation where characters will inevitably fall if a blow connects. There's room for a little back and forth - with each wound received making the chance of a decisive attack more likely. And that ups the potential for derring-do, because a PC can take a calculated risk with their six HP in a way that's simply not possible when they only have 1.
But what about stat bonuses? After all, some people are tougher than others - or hit harder. I don't want to use STR-based damage bonuses, because those raise the minimum damage above 1. The strongest character can still cause just a scratch when they swing a sword.
Might an exceptionally strong character use the common 2D6-and-take-the-higher house rule (normally reserved for two-handed weapons) and roll an ogre-sized D8 when using a two-handed weapon? I quite like the sound of that - but it would have to be for very strong characters. There is a way of gradating this, though: characters with 16 or 17 STR might do a D8 with a two-handed weapon, and those with 18 might get the 2D6/take-the-higher rule with one-handed weapons and the D8 for two-handers.
I don't much like CON as a stat - and especially not as one that affects HP. It seems to me that strength (as reflected in muscle and bone size and density) is the physical characteristic that would boost HP; CON, as a nebulous measure of disease resistance, stamina and fitness, doesn't have an obvious role to play here.
But here's the thing. If HP are set at 6 for a first-level character (or NPC), then any bonus takes the character out of the danger zone for at least one round. If you have 7 HP, you're not going to be killed by that orc arrow or guardsman's crossbow bolt.
Perhaps, then, 6 shouldn't be the starting point. What if we make 3 or 4 the starting HP and have bonuses to HP from STR? A starting score of 4 with STR 13-15 +1 and 16-18 +2? Or a starting score of 3 with STR 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2 and 18 +3?
In that case, monster HP can be altered slightly by type. If one is separating goblins from orcs in the (distinctly un-Tolkien) D&D style, then perhaps goblins have 3, orcs have 4 and orc leaders and hobgoblins have 5 or 6?
We could also have character-class penalties for HP. Perhaps magicians, withered by study and unnatural practices, have starting HP of 2 or 3 against 3 or 4. And creatures smaller than human size could be reduced to HP 2 or 3 (though not 1).
There's something satisfying, though, about the symmetry of 6 HP and D6 damage. And if we're assuming that 6 is a lethal blow for most people, we might assume that it's a blow that would be lethal for almost anyone.
What, then, do we do with levelling up? The 6 HP/D6 damage symmetry immediately makes anyone with even 7 HP exceptional. So perhaps the increment is 1 hit point per level rather than 1 hit die. Or perhaps fighters get 2 HP while other classes get 1. That way, the second-level fighter is immediately a more awe-inspiring figure - one who can risk an arrow or a sword stroke without fearing death. And by fourth level, even a full-on hit from an ogre won't kill at a stroke.
Decisions, decisions ...
Some great ideas here. I have always preferred it when there was some danger of character death in every encounter, so always preferred low-level D&D adventures. Your low HP and standard-ish damage looks like it would work well. Runequest, Dragon Warriors and Pendragon always held this kind of danger for an adventurer. Adding in crits and impales to make damage potentially higher would also scare the average second level character created under your criteria, as even they would be in danger of a serious injury or death from a lowly kobold equivalent.
ReplyDeleteYes - I like low-level adventures best (less bookkeeping, for one thing - give me 6 HP any day over 60!).
DeleteThe crit/impale is definitely something I'm thinking about; the challenge is to come up with a method that doesn't make combat between first-level characters *too* lethal. Perhaps exploding damage on a 6 would do the trick; after all, first-level characters are - barring shields - already dead at that point!
Or maybe - just maybe - a nat 20 gives the chance of exploding damage. So damage is theoretically infinite, but it only applies if you roll a 20 followed by a 6 for damage. Hmm ... I quite like that, as it keeps the odds of such a ruinous stroke fairly low.
DeleteYou might be running it this way anyway, but I would suggest changing the shield-breaking rule to "if the attacker rolls a 6+". That way ogres and giants, with their higher damage dice, are more likely to break a shield rather than less.
ReplyDeleteRe-rolling 1s is another middle ground from rolling damage with advantage/2d6-take-highest. You still need to roll snake-eyes to deal 1 point of damage, but you won't get the benefit on all of your rolls.